thank you. 

There's a game called Penumbra: Overture released, er, last year, that should be pretty scary. It's still first person, but there's less shooting involved. 

like 100x less shooting 

I don't think it was the lack of variety in the combat per se. I think the problem was that the scary ambushes were meant to surprise you, but after a half dozen of them they were repetative, and that meant they failed to be shocks. Because the game was so oriented around that idea, it kept falling short of the expectation it set itself. 

1. Teleport blob appears
2. Player turns to face it
3. Player loads shotgun
4. Player has a cup of tea
5. Imp appears and player shoots it

6. Repeat until reaching next area

That wasn't everything, but there was a hell of alot of it. When the gameplay did depart - like the tunnel crawling / trites section, it was twitchy and fun.

There just weren't enough different ways of playing. It didn't need vehicle sections, or hacking or drunken idea #57, just some slight deviation from gameplay design so archaic most mappers on this forum would complain and/or dismiss it if done in Quake 1.

I don't buy the argument that they did well within their chosen direction - if the game concept is lacking then you change it.

If you've marginalised the level design team and have a horde of artists and programmers then what you get is a well made game that looks good, but has repetitive, cheesy gameplay. 

In my opionion FEAR is the best example of a horror fps!

Fantastic gameplay, cool visuals (yes the locations were a bit mundane, but when the bullets fly its so pretty) and the horror factor worked a lot better than Doom.

Granted it wasn't THAT scary when it comes down to it, but it got under my skin more than any other fps game I can think of in recent memory. 

LOL totally forgot about that one, althought I would not classify it as an fps, more a first person puzzle game with fps tones.

Utterly fantstic game, and a fuckton more scary than both doom and fear put together! 

you are so easily amused 

was scarier than doom 3 by a long way. Then again, I only played the demo, so maybe it wasn't so scary after the climax of the demo, which gave me a bloody huge scare even though it was possibly the weakest enemy in the game. Despite kind of crappy art at times, it manages to feel very immersive. The interaction with the environment is handled really nicely, so that might have had something to do with it. 

An enemy you can't fight, with time pressure applied so you're panicking trying to hide from it, that you can't even LOOK AT without going insane and revealing yourself, which has kind of wierd russian only-so-good art which is eerily more scary than something by a good artist, is gonna be pretty damn scary. 

...and Kinn. 

I think that what a lot of people are forgetting is that there were definitely cool aspects about the game at the time - monsters, effects, lighting, atmosphere, scariness, some of the style etc etc - which I think made for a pretty cool game at the time, but not one that has lasted the test of time combat-wise. A bit of a one off "initial impact" experience....and I suspect that many people who are now dissing D3 probably enjoyed it then but it's easy to forget about the good qualities when it's not longer a fresh experience... 

.. you are right ! 

I remember it like it was yesterday, because, well... it almost was. WTF, this is practically a new game as far as I'm concerned!

Anyways, you're right to some extent... there are plenty of good qualities there, but the reality is that the gameplay, i.e. the only thing that really matters, was mediocre at best and definitely did not deserve the mighty DOOM name. 

"but the reality is that the gameplay, i.e. the only thing that really matters, "

I wish people would stop saying this because you know good and well that you wouldn't play Quake if it was butt ugly. 

I wish people would stop saying this because you know good and well that you wouldn't play Quake if it was butt ugly.

I wish people would stop saying that because it's largely irrelevant.

You are perfectly right - there's a certain minimum standard (different for everyone, of course) that a game will need to be at in terms of graphics/sound/etc for people to play it at all. But in order to continue playing (or re-playing) a game, the gameplay has to be pretty solid or you'll pass on it.

Don't get me wrong, Doom 3 is obviously a quality game and I played it through to the end (which in itself is a remarkable thing these days). However, I wanted to see it through to the end despite the gameplay flaws, rather than because it was truly fun. The art and atmosphere (when it wasn't being spoiled by shitty monster-spawning-behind-you tactics) was exceptional and made me want to see more.

Ok, the gameplay was mediocre rather than actively bad for the most part, but the problem is it was Doom motherfucking 3! Expectations for the gameplay were so high because Doom was (and still is) the best single-player FPS of all time, and Doom 3 failed to deliver (falling drastically short of the mark). Simple as that.

p.s. you know full well that Quake is butt-ugly by modern standards, but we continue playing it because the fun factor is high. :D 

"p.s. you know full well that Quake is butt-ugly by modern standards, but we continue playing it because the fun factor is high. :D"

For me, that's incorrect. I really like how Quake looks. It exudes a personality that few games are able to match. The graphics are a LARGE part of the Quake experience for me.

And nothing you said refutes what I said. Gameplay is clearly NOT the only thing that matters. 

I can't refute what I agree with. You're right. Gameplay is not the only thing that matters.

It is however, as I said originally, the only thing that really matters. 

*pokes Fribbles with a sharp stick* 

Obviously a rift in our opinions here lads!

I personally think that Doom3 is an excellent game! I quite like the gameplay. The areas which are supposed to be "lame" in gameplay I dont think are too bad. I like the way the player is made to feel restricted in movement, and I like the fact that you cannt have a flashlight and a gun at the same time. It adds to the tension.
I also love the deserted feel to the game. The exploratory bits are cool!

The graphics were mind-blowing at the time!!

I still play it. Nitin has re-played it. Some of us have mapped for it. We argue about it all the time!

Fribbles is allowed to complain about it. Its his job!

Gaming companys: Increase your output! I wouldn't mind paying an extra 10 pounds for a game if there were more games to play and the games were bigger. MORE RELEASES!!! CREATE AN ARMY OF STAFF TO MAKE MORE GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

"I can't refute what I agree with. You're right. Gameplay is not the only thing that matters.

It is however, as I said originally, the only thing that really matters."

You're still saying that gameplay is the only thing that matters - you're just doing it with many more words. The meaning is the same. And you're wrong. 

Try an experiment - play a game of Quake in "r_drawflat 1" (or whatever that mode was called). Still fun? No? Surprise! 

everybody plays mp in as shitty graphics as possible to see better. 

I know. The fact that a small niche community downgrades the graphics to mud doesn't mean that the "gameplay is the only thing that really matters" mantra is universally true. 

Or, I could counter by saying that when I and my friends play multiplayer games we play in the highest settings our machines can manage. Point negated.